Past Blog Posts

In Doe v. Kelly, the Ninth Circuit issued an opinion affirming the preliminary injunctionissued by the U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona, which found that CBP is violating the constitutional rights of Tucson Sector immigration detainees and ordered CBP to take certain steps to improve conditions in its Tucson Sector holding facilities.

The American Immigration Council, along with the Center for Constitutional Rights and Latham and Watkins, LLP, filed a class action lawsuit challenging U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s (CBP) unlawful practice of turning away asylum seekers who present themselves at ports of entry along the U.S. border with Mexico. The individual plaintiffs endured arduous journeys to the U.S. border, and their experiences demonstrate that CBP uses a variety of tactics to deny bona fide asylum seekers the opportunity to pursue their claims.

The U.S. District Court for the District of Arizona issued an order finding that CBP is violating the constitutional rights of immigration detainees by holding them in conditions of confinement that fail to meet their basic human needs, and directing CBP to take certain steps to improve conditions in those facilities, known as hieleras. The injunction stems from a class action lawsuit filed in June 2015 by a group of immigration detainees who alleged that they were subjected to inhumane and punitive conditions during their confinement in Tucson Sector CBP holding facilities.

Like this:

CBP announced that it is setting up a temporary holding facility adjacent to the Donna-Rio Bravo International Bridge in Donna, Texas, to provide additional capacity for unaccompanied children and family units in CBP custody at Ports of Entry and U.S. Border Patrol stations in the South Texas area. The temporary site can currently hold up to 500 people, but CBP stated that it will regularly assess whether to expand this facility or keep it operational based on the number of people arriving in the area.

CBP released an announcement that it is continuing its review of the use of body cameras, but is not deploying body cameras in the field at this time. CBP also released its body-worn camera feasibility study, stating that its Working Group considered and rejected several different deployment options, including a pilot program and broad-based deployment, before ultimately recommending a risk-based, measured deployment option.

Like this:

A Los Angeles Times special report examines 450 uses of Tasers, hand-held devices that deliver a paralyzing electric charge, documented by CBP agents from 2010 to 2013. The analysis found that, at least 70 times, CBP agents fired the devices at people who were running away, even though there was no struggle or clear indication that agents were in danger, according to use-of-force reports. At least six times, agents used the weapons against people who were trying to climb over the border fence back into Mexico.

Like this:

Today, CBP released statistics on the number of use of force incidents that occurred between FY2011 and FY2015, broken down by fiscal year. The data, which reflects the application of the use of force by U.S. Border Patrol agents, CBP officers, and air interdiction agents, indicates that there were 768 use of force incidents in FY2015, compared to 1037 such incidents in FY2014.